Research on personal space and social learning theory suggests that individuals develop social schemata that define their associations with, and social distancing from, others. The present study was designed to examine parental attributions of exceptionality within a mainstreamed classroom. A social distancing measure was computed within two conditions (labels and descriptions of exceptionality) and analyzed by a discrepancy score to determine parental preferences for placing their normal children in proximity to a handicapped peer. Differences in rank ordering of seven categories of exceptionality varied according to the condition, particularly for EMR and SMR cohorts. In both conditions, however, the category of emotionally disturbed was considered least desirable. Interpretations of differences in the rank ordering are provided. The need for the development of causal models of variable interactions that produce such differences in parental attributions of exceptionality is elaborated upon.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Antonak, R. F. (1980). A hierarchy of attitudes toward exceptionality. Journal of Special Education, 14, 231–241.
2.
Blankenship, C., & Lilly, M. S. (1981). Mainstreaming students with learning and behavior problems.New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
3.
Budoff, M., & Gottlieb, J. (1976). Special class EMR students mainstreamed: A study of an aptitude (learning potential) treatment interaction. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 81, 1–11.
4.
Cohen, J. S., & DeYoung, H. (1973). The role of litigation in the improvement of programming for the handicapped. In L. Mann & D. A. Sabatino (Eds.), The first review of special education (Vol. 2, pp. 261–286). Philadelphia: Buttonwood Farms.
5.
Cruickshank, W. M. (1977). Least restrictive placement: Administrative wishful thinking. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 10(4), 5–6.
6.
Duke, M. P., & Nowicki, S. (1972). A new measure and social learning model for interpersonal distinct. Journal of Experimental Research in Personality, 6, 119–132.
7.
Edmonds, V. (1967). Marital conventionalization: Definition and measurement. Journal of Marriage and Family, 29, 681–688.
8.
Foster, G. G., Schmidt, C., & Sabatino, D. A. (1976). Teacher expectancies and the label “Learning Disabilities”. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 9, 111–114.
9.
Foster, G. G., Ysseldyke, J. E., & Reese, J. (1975). “I never would have seen it, if I hadn't believed it”. Exceptional Children, 41, 469–473.
10.
Hinde, R. (1976). Interactions, relationships and social structure. Man, 11 (N.S.), 1–17.
11.
Jones, R., Gottfried, N. W., & Owens, A. (1966). The social distance of the exceptional: A study at the high school level. Exceptional Children, 32, 551–556.
12.
Kaufman, M. J., Gottlieb, J., Agard, J. A., & Kukic, M. B. (1975). Mainstreaming: Toward an explication of the construct. Focus on Exceptional Children, 7, 1–12.
13.
Knoff, H. M. (1984). Mainstreaming attitudes and special placement knowledge in labeling versus nonlabeling states. Remedial and Special Education, 3(5), 7–14.
14.
Kuethe, J. (1962). Social schemas. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 64, 31–36.
15.
Newcomer, P. L. (1977). Special education service for the “mildly handicapped”: Beyond a diagnostic and remedial model. Joumal of Special Education, 11, 153–165.
16.
Nie, N., Hull, C., Jenkins, J., Steinbrenner, K., & Bent, D. (1979).Statistical package for the social sciences (2nd. ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
17.
Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. (1957). The measurement of meaning.Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
18.
Prillaman, D. (1981). Acceptance of learning disabled students in the mainstream environment: A failure to replicate. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 14, 344–346, 368.
19.
Reschley, D., & Lamprecht, M. (1979). Expectancy effects of labels: Fact or artifact?Exceptional Children, 46(1), 55–58.
20.
Rickey, L. D., Miller, M., & Lessman, J. (1981). Resource and regular classroom behavior of learning disabled students. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 14, 163–166.
21.
Rose, T., & Gottlieb, J. (1981). Transfer of training: Anoverlooked component of mainstreaming programs. Exceptional Children, 48, 175–177.
22.
Rotter, J. (1954). Social learning and clinical psychology.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
23.
Siperstein, G. N., & Gottlieb, J. (1977). Physical stigma and academic performance as factors affecting children's first impression of handicapped peers. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 81, 455–462.
24.
Siperstein, G. N., & Gottlieb, J. (1978). Parents' and teachers' attitude toward mildly and severely retarded children. Mental Retardation, 16, 321–322.
25.
Smith, I. L., & Greenberg, S. (1975). Teacher attitudes and the labeling process. Exceptional Children, 41, 319–324.
26.
Sommer, R. (1959). Studies in personal space. Sociometry, 22, 247–260.
27.
Strain, P. S., & Kerr, M. M. (1981). Mainstreaming of children in schools: Research and programmatic issues.New York: Academic Press.
28.
Wang, M. C., Peverly, S., & Randolph, R. (1984). An investigation of the implementation and effects of a fulltime mainstreaming program. Remedial and Special Education, 5(6), 21–32.
29.
Weemer, P. (1981). On comparing learning disabled and regular classroom children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 14, 227–231.
30.
Williams, R. J., & Algozzine, B. (1979). Teachers' attitudes toward mainstreaming. The Elementary School Journal, 80(2), 63–67.
